Ginsburg "chastised the Senate for refusing to act on President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee"

And that is why the Glorious Senate and God’s Chosen President are going to honor her wishes and correct this slight oversight and put a highly qualified judge on the bench immediately. We cannot allow democracy to die and Trump, with the help of his Christian base and God, will see to it that America is preserved.

ananda said:

"Justice Ginsburg took stock of a tumultuous term and chastised the Senate for refusing to act on President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee ... Asked if the Senate had an obligation to assess Judge Garland’s qualifications, her answer was immediate. 'That’s their job,' she said. 'There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.'" (source)

Click to expand...

'last year' and 'last month' are a bit different.

ananda said:

"Justice Ginsburg took stock of a tumultuous term and chastised the Senate for refusing to act on President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee ... Asked if the Senate had an obligation to assess Judge Garland’s qualifications, her answer was immediate. 'That’s their job,' she said. 'There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.'" (source)

Click to expand...

She was quite right too, but the Republicans can't just pick and choose when they want to do the right thing. Consistency is more important than anything else with this stuff. You can't have a system of law where those laws are only applied when people feel like it.

the partisan hypocrisy is evident on both sides and on this issue very similar situations for sure we have flip flops of opinions all over the place.

Brian Mcnamee said:

the partisan hypocrisy is evident on both sides and on this issue very similar situations for sure we have flip flops of opinions all over the place.

Click to expand...

The situations are only somewhat similar.

The Garland appointment was 8 months (~240 days) prior to an election.

Ginsburg's vacancy is 45 days prior to an election.

It's clear hypocrisy to say that 240 days is "too close to an election" but 45 days isn't.

It's not as clear hypocrisy to say "45 days is too close to an election, but 240 days isn't" - someone could have consistently held that 180 days was "too close" such that there is no hypocrisy.

All of that being said, what's more important is precedent. By the Republicans refusing to consider Garland in March 2016, they set precedent that 240 days is "too close to an election". They should hold to the precedent that they set. Democrats insisting that Republicans hold consistent to the precedent they set isn't hypocrisy.

ananda said:

"Justice Ginsburg took stock of a tumultuous term and chastised the Senate for refusing to act on President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee ... Asked if the Senate had an obligation to assess Judge Garland’s qualifications, her answer was immediate. 'That’s their job,' she said. 'There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.'" (source)

Click to expand...

So perhaps Trump should push his nominee through to honor her wishes. It is what RBG would have wanted.

Tom 1 said:

'last year' and 'last month' are a bit different.

Click to expand...

You know that you know that you know that if it was reversed the Dems would go right ahead and nominate and confirm their choice to the SC.

Brian Mcnamee said:

the partisan hypocrisy is evident on both sides and on this issue very similar situations for sure we have flip flops of opinions all over the place.

Click to expand...

It still comes down though to this one thing. Does the President have the Constitutional right to nominate someone to the SC. YES. Does the Senate have the right to do a vote on the one nominated. YES.

It seems the Dems are trying to argue some type of ethical right to not do it over legal but can anyone believe the Dems would hold back if all this was reversed? I think we all know the answer to that. NO.

I have a feeling her opinion would be reverse if it had been Trump, at the time. That's the twisted way she ruled on cases, also, and it's why we need to make sure we don't end up with another justice like her.

Notorious RBG what a great role model for women ! Loved her and will miss her intelligence and the fact that she stuck up for women’s rights

Kentonio said:

She was quite right too, but the Republicans can't just pick and choose when they want to do the right thing. Consistency is more important than anything else with this stuff. You can't have a system of law where those laws are only applied when people feel like it.

Click to expand...

Huh. We'll see about that!

Bobber said:

You know that you know that you know that if it was reversed the Dems would go right ahead and nominate and confirm their choice to the SC.

Click to expand...

Probably. But the Democrats aren't the ones who decided almost 9 months wasn't enough time to approve a nominee. A lot of the outrage right now is over the hypocritical behavior of the GOP. It wasn't the Democratic party or Justice Ginsburg who made a pious show of "the voters should have a say" when they were the opposition party and now ignoring that. Most of a year and a little more then a month are two very different time frames.

Bobber said:

You know that you know that you know that if it was reversed the Dems would go right ahead and nominate and confirm their choice to the SC.

Click to expand...

The Democrats never said you can’t put through a president’s nomination too close to an election. That would be the Republicans. To be clear the Republicans established that the rules don’t need to be followed if it stands to benefit a Democratic President. Honestly if it were any other person in the majority leaders seat that made the decision this year it wouldn’t be so bad but that it’s the exact same person deciding his own rules no longer apply is what makes this such rank hypocrisy.

Especially since they only rejected Garland over nonsense not because he wasn’t qualified. He’s was better qualified than kavanaugh

Brian Mcnamee said:

the partisan hypocrisy is evident on both sides and on this issue very similar situations for sure we have flip flops of opinions all over the place.

Click to expand...

However, I don't believe that there actually has been any flip-flop on the Republican side, if we look closely. Not as far as the decisions taken are concerned. This nomination certainly is not parallel to the Garland situation, for instance.

I cannot vouch for what any individual Senator might have said along the way, though.

Bobber said:

You know that you know that you know that if it was reversed the Dems would go right ahead and nominate and confirm their choice to the SC.

Click to expand...

The thing that stands out is the complete, instantaneous reversal of the stated position of several top-ranking politicians, from ‘never under any circumstances’ to ‘how soon can we do this?’. What reason would anybody have to accord them any level of trust or respect?

ananda said:

"Justice Ginsburg took stock of a tumultuous term and chastised the Senate for refusing to act on President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee ... Asked if the Senate had an obligation to assess Judge Garland’s qualifications, her answer was immediate. 'That’s their job,' she said. 'There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.'" (source)

Click to expand...

Yeah there is something very similar only with Biden speaking before the US Senate in 1992.... Urging Bush senior to not nominate a Justice. McConnel followed that in 2016 when the government was divided. He however is not following that now that government is not divided, and that is just fine with me.
The Democrat's have a habit of always changing the rules to benefit them, we should occasionally have things favor us. And historically if you look at things that is largely true when it comes to appointments. Parties try to push them through if they think they got the where with all to do so.

Oompa Loompa said:

So perhaps Trump should push his nominee through to honor her wishes. It is what RBG would have wanted.

Click to expand...

She actually expressly wishes for the candidate to be named by the winner of the next election.

Arcangl86 said:

Probably. But the Democrats aren't the ones who decided almost 9 months wasn't enough time to approve a nominee. A lot of the outrage right now is over the hypocritical behavior of the GOP. It wasn't the Democratic party or Justice Ginsburg who made a pious show of "the voters should have a say" when they were the opposition party and now ignoring that. Most of a year and a little more then a month are two very different time frames.

Click to expand...

I keenly remember a time when Trump was asked about his shady business practices, like stiffing contractors. He said that it was just "good business", and his supporters (many of whom being in the same working class as the stiffed contractors) cheered until their throats are sore.

This is the america that the americans desire. "Ethical is whatever you can get away with" is the only maxim, and under that maxim there's no hypocracy on the side of the republicans.

The only ones to blame are the democrats for not using all tools at their disposal. If I were an american, I'd be voting republican. Not because I believe in everything they stand for, or even the majority.

I just think that those willing to trample on their enemies deserve to be on top, and those that aren't willing deserve to be on the bottom. That's the natural order of things since the first caveman hardened a sharpened spear over a fire.